"bottleneck"

Some folks, fanboys or not, are saying that some AMD processor's (955/965BE for example)are bottlnecking some higher end cards or SLI/xfire.

Any facts to back this up?

Depends on the game. In Skyrim for example, a Phenom can bottleneck even a 560TI let alone sli/xfire.

It depends on the game, but in more cases than not their will be a slight bottleneck and in some games a major bottleneck

Er for games theres hardly any difference and half the other stuff the phenoms are better..........? so much for massively more powerful 2500k's bloody fanboys and their hype :D

[QUOTE="jonleeprice"][QUOTE="C_Rule"]Yep, depends on the game. Can range from no difference, to quite a significant bottleneck. Without trawling bench sites, here are a couple of example, from my favourite. 955 vs 2500K1100T BE vs 2500K Games are down the bottom.jonleeprice

Look at only the game tests. It didn't beat the 2500k in even one.

[QUOTE="jonleeprice"][QUOTE="jonleeprice"] Out of 41 tests on that site (i think i counted right) the AMD 1090t BEATS the 2500k in 28 of them "cough" "cough" thats over half............xxLordDavidxx

Look at only the game tests. It didn't beat the 2500k in even one.

It didnt but most were very close......To not even be noticable, Dirt 3 100fps amd 104 intel big whoop, metro 51 amd 53 intel........really even worth mentioning...no i didnt think so :D

And intel fanboys are always harping on how the 2500k destroys amd's when not in games and doing other stuff..........clearly for those benchmarks ALL those fanboys are very very wrong

LOL the i5 rapes Bulldozer. Who is this joker trying to convince...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288

Look at the benchmarks again, when the 1090t wins it's a marginal win at best. And the only reason it's winning is because it has two more cores than the i5. When a applicaiton is not using six cores the i5 decimates the 1090t.

In gaming for example the i5 is 20-40! FPS faster than the 1090t in EVERY damn video game. Which is hilarious considering the 1090T costs far more than the i5.

On Amazon.co.uk

the 1090T = 217 english sterling.

i5 = 167.99

i7 = 236.99

i5 Is the best CPU for gamers on the market, end of story. And why buy a 1090t when you can add a bit more and buy a i7 which uses Hyper Threading upto eight cores.

[QUOTE="xxLordDavidxx"]

[QUOTE="jonleeprice"] Sorry 42 tests and 24 were higher on AMD.....STILL over half thoughjonleeprice

Look at only the game tests. It didn't beat the 2500k in even one.

It didnt but most were very close......

And intel fanboys are always harping on how the 2500k destroys amd's when not in games and doing other stuff..........clearly for those benchmarks ALL those fanboys are very very wrong

[QUOTE="xxLordDavidxx"]

[QUOTE="jonleeprice"] Sorry 42 tests and 24 were higher on AMD.....STILL over half thoughjonleeprice

Look at only the game tests. It didn't beat the 2500k in even one.

It didnt but most were very close......

And intel fanboys are always harping on how the 2500k destroys amd's when not in games and doing other stuff..........clearly for those benchmarks ALL those fanboys are very very wrong

Dude you're comparing two CPUs which are in completely different price ranges, and funny enough the i5 still looks much better even though it's piced far less. But If you want to stop acting like a AMD nuthugger try comparing the 1090T vs the i7 and see what happens. Both CPUs are priced very close to each other.

Yes AMD cpu's will bottleneck 85% of games at sub 1080p resolutions. This bottleneck is even more sever when running xfire or sli. At resolutions higher then 1080p like eyefinity resolutions.......the bottleneck is much less of a problem as the GPU's are working much harder.....but like in my case even though i'm running 5256x1050 resolution and powered by dual 2gb 6950's......games like BF3 are maxing out my CPU to 100% and my GPUs are starving. They run at about 80% because the 3.9ghz 955 can't keep up with two high end cards like them. When my CPU is maxed out on maps like Caspian i get FPS spikes and my cards never really get past 80%-90% usage. If i was running the same setup at 1080p i would guess my cards would only see 50%-60% GPU usage with a 955.

[QUOTE="jonleeprice"]

[QUOTE="xxLordDavidxx"]

Look at only the game tests. It didn't beat the 2500k in even one.

ShimmerMan

It didnt but most were very close......

And intel fanboys are always harping on how the 2500k destroys amd's when not in games and doing other stuff..........clearly for those benchmarks ALL those fanboys are very very wrong

Dude you're comparing two CPUs which are in completely different price ranges, and funny enough the i5 still looks much better even though it's piced far less. But If you want to stop acting like a AMD nuthugger try comparing the 1090T vs the i7 and see what happens. Both CPUs are priced very close to each other.

Anyways gonna leave this thread now before it starts getting like the last one :D

Either way you have proved that they are very very close in comparison amd amd better in a few cases.

I think this is a topic started with the sole purpose to see how many double, triple and quadruple posts JLP can make... :P

Hahah i5 pulled

51 extra FPS in Dragon Age:Origins

48.7 extra FPS in World of Warcraft..

10 extra FPS in Crysis Warhead (which is not even that much of a CPU dependant game)

27 FPS in FC2

The 1090t also uses butt loads more power than the i5, it also costs more. And he's saying the results are "very very close".. Ehh no they're nowhere close to being close hahah.. i5 is decimating the 1090T in every possible way, especially in gaming.

Hahah i5 pulled

51 extra FPS in Dragon Age:Origins

48.7 extra FPS in World of Warcraft..

10 extra FPS in Crysis Warhead (which is not even that much of a CPU dependant game)

27 FPS in FC2

The 1090t also uses butt loads more power than the i5, it also costs more. And he's saying the results are "very very close".. Ehh no they're nowhere close to being close hahah.. i5 is decimating the 1090T in every possible way, especially in gaming.

ShimmerMan

i7 920 @ 3.6ghz bottlenecks GTX 580 3x SLI @5760x1200

Today we are bringing you a unique performance evaluation that has evolved out of a recent article we published.

On April 28th, 2011 we published an evaluation that compared NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 3-Way SLI and AMD Radeon HD 6990+6970 Tri-Fire performance. In that evaluation all of the evidence we gathered pointed toward the Tri-Fire solution being the better value and delivering the absolute best performance, out****ng the more expensive GTX 580 3-Way SLI configuration. After publication, we received feedback that perhaps 3-Way SLI was not getting its fair shake at gaming performance due to our then current system configuration limiting its ability. While we did not think that scaling the CPU clock would actually flip-flop our real world gaming results, we thought our readers had made some really good points with us and we wanted to retest to see what validity we could find in their questions. Over the last 8 years or so, real world gameplay testing has taught us a lot things and it was about to teach us a few more things about multi-GPU setups, which honestly, we do not spend a lot of time with unless we just happen to have a lot of time open in our schedules. But let it be said, and we are eating some crow here, you knew more about it than we did, and we are glad we listened to you.

We have been using an Intel X58 chipset motherboard with an Intel Core i7-920 overclocked to 3.6GHz. This system has worked great for us for a long while now, but more than dual-GPU performance may benefit from a faster system. The time has come for us to upgrade our video card testing rig for super high-end video card reviews. We are now using the absolute latest motherboard and most powerful CPU in order to find out if a faster CPU really does affect 3-Way SLI and Tri-Fire performance. It is time for use to "upgrade" from our X58 "flagship" system. HARDOCP

[QUOTE="jonleeprice"][QUOTE="C_Rule"]Yep, depends on the game. Can range from no difference, to quite a significant bottleneck. Without trawling bench sites, here are a couple of example, from my favourite. 955 vs 2500K1100T BE vs 2500K Games are down the bottom.jonleeprice

The 1100T only wins 6 tests.

Yep, depends on the game. Can range from no difference, to quite a significant bottleneck. Without trawling bench sites, here are a couple of example, from my favourite. 955 vs 2500K1100T BE vs 2500K Games are down the bottom.C_Rule

i7 920 @ 3.6ghz bottlenecks GTX 580 3x SLI @5760x1200

[quote="HARDOCP"]Today we are bringing you a unique performance evaluation that has evolved out of a recent article we published.

On April 28th, 2011 we published an evaluation that compared NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 3-Way SLI and AMD Radeon HD 6990+6970 Tri-Fire performance. In that evaluation all of the evidence we gathered pointed toward the Tri-Fire solution being the better value and delivering the absolute best performance, out****ng the more expensive GTX 580 3-Way SLI configuration. After publication, we received feedback that perhaps 3-Way SLI was not getting its fair shake at gaming performance due to our then current system configuration limiting its ability. While we did not think that scaling the CPU clock would actually flip-flop our real world gaming results, we thought our readers had made some really good points with us and we wanted to retest to see what validity we could find in their questions. Over the last 8 years or so, real world gameplay testing has taught us a lot things and it was about to teach us a few more things about multi-GPU setups, which honestly, we do not spend a lot of time with unless we just happen to have a lot of time open in our schedules. But let it be said, and we are eating some crow here, you knew more about it than we did, and we are glad we listened to you.

We have been using an Intel X58 chipset motherboard with an Intel Core i7-920 overclocked to 3.6GHz. This system has worked great for us for a long while now, but more than dual-GPU performance may benefit from a faster system. The time has come for us to upgrade our video card testing rig for super high-end video card reviews. We are now using the absolute latest motherboard and most powerful CPU in order to find out if a faster CPU really does affect 3-Way SLI and Tri-Fire performance. It is time for use to "upgrade" from our X58 "flagship" system. kaitanuvax

The 2600k is at a way higher clock speed. I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison of both at the same speed.

The 2600k is at a way higher clock speed. I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison of both at the same speed.

kraken2109

That's not the point though. The fact is that there is a bottleneck.

We all know the i7 920>Phenom II anyways. So yes, a Phenom II IS a bottleneck at very high resolutions and powerful GPU setups.

Well i didn't have an AMD CPU in my previous PC, but a Core 2 Quad @ 3 Ghz which bottlenecked my 480 GTX in lots of games.

Some games that ran worse because of my CPU:

Skyrim, Test Drive Unlimited 2 (20-30 fps in the cities, 60 fps elsewhere), F1 2010, Fallout New Vegas, Battlefield 3 MP, GTA IV, Shift 2 Unleashed. Just to name a few.

The big problem that people have is they don't factor in that when people get an 2500k or a 2600k they usually have to make some kind of compromise on the video card they buy. Yes intel processors are faster, but if you get a faster processor and you have to gimp yourself on the video card that defeats the whole purpose.

When you calculate total system cost you see people with AMD systems with a much stronger video card and a system with an OK CPU and a Monster GPU will outperform a Monster CPU and an OK GPU in 90% of the games out there.

for instance a 955/560Ti > 2600k/550Ti setup

There was a thread on here a few days ago with a guy got a 2500k/2600k with a geforce 210 and was wondering why performance was bad.

Not to mention at extremely large resolutions the GPU is the limiting factor not the CPU in nearly all games.

All I can say is that I am running an 1100T BEat 4.0Ghz with an SLI 460 setup and get fantastic framerates in everything (Except Metro of course).

While I would prefer to have a 2500k setup, there really is no reason AT ALL for me to upgrade to that. Everything runs fine for me with my setup.

Some folks, fanboys or not, are saying that some AMD processor's (955/965BE for example)are bottlnecking some higher end cards or SLI/xfire.

Any facts to back this up?

lucky_star

[QUOTE="lucky_star"]

Some folks, fanboys or not, are saying that some AMD processor's (955/965BE for example)are bottlnecking some higher end cards or SLI/xfire.

Any facts to back this up?

Addict187